Author Topic: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?  (Read 2631 times)

Offline stanmapstone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,798
    • View Profile
Re: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?
« Reply #18 on: Saturday 10 October 15 12:05 BST (UK) »
When was their first child born?

Stan
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline GeneCat

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?
« Reply #19 on: Saturday 10 October 15 12:16 BST (UK) »
When was their first child born?

Stan

A good time later Stan. So don't think she was pregnant when married.

I think unless I find more info about the groom then I will never really know why they didn't marry in a church.  I was just looking for ideas as to why it might be the case (as hadn't personally come across a non-church wedding in my own research) that someone would marry in registry office and I think everyone that replied has given me a lot to consider.   :) 

Especially liked that chart that was posted with the figures for marriages in the different years. Think it works out at 2.6% of registry office weddings for the same year my couple got married, and it goes up steadily year by year. So not as uncommon as I had first assumed.  8)

Offline stanmapstone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,798
    • View Profile
Re: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?
« Reply #20 on: Saturday 10 October 15 14:17 BST (UK) »
These are the numbers of marriages in churches and register offices from 1841 to 1864.
Stan
These are the figures for 1838-1840
Year      Total Marriages Solemnised   Register Office Marriages
1838         111,481                                      1,093
1839         121,083                                      1,564
1840         124,329                                      1,938

Stan
       
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline GeneCat

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?
« Reply #21 on: Saturday 10 October 15 14:20 BST (UK) »
Cheers Stan. You're a star! 8)


Offline arthurk

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,236
    • View Profile
Re: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?
« Reply #22 on: Saturday 10 October 15 14:38 BST (UK) »
The entry for Aubourn in the National Index of Parish Registers volume on Lincolnshire (published by the Society of Genealogists) includes this note, from the 1851 Religious Census: Vicar reported in 1851 that two thirds of the people of the village had been Wesleyan Dissenters since 1810.

That may be part of the answer, but there's more, this time from GENUKI: A small Weslyean Methodist chapel was established about 1805 and completely rebuilt in 1845.
(See http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/LIN/Aubourn/#ChurchHistory)

The NIPR doesn't list any marriage registers for the Wesleyan chapel, so it may be that like many other non-conformist places of worship, it wasn't actually authorised for marriages. And some non-Anglicans, it seems, preferred to marry in a register office rather than in the parish church. (And even if Aubourn chapel was authorised for marriages, it's possible that it was out of action around that time while being rebuilt.)

The parish church in Aubourn has an interesting history too, though not strictly relevant here. The original church, dating from abround 1200, was replaced by a much larger one on a different site in 1862. This one, however, was decommissioned in the 1970s, and all that remains is a tall spire, a few walls, and a graveyard; the little old church is once again being used as the parish church. There is a brief account of this on the GENUKI page I referred to, but it implies (incorrectly, I believe) that the later church is still intact. It's the the little old church, with a low spire, that is still standing, and the later one with the tall spire is mostly demolished.

Arthur
Researching among others:
Bartle, Bilton, Bingley, Campbell, Craven, Emmott, Harcourt, Hirst, Kellet(t), Kennedy,
Meaburn, Mennile/Meynell, Metcalf(e), Palliser, Robinson, Rutter, Shipley, Stow, Wilkinson

Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline ThrelfallYorky

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,600
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?
« Reply #23 on: Saturday 10 October 15 14:47 BST (UK) »
Is that always meaning marriages AT a Register Office - or does it cover those where a Registrar ATTENDED? I've a few popped up where they were Methodists, Quakers or Baptists, and often it seems to say "registrar attended" somewhere, and I'd thought that it was possible for a marriage to be performed in a chapel if the registrar was there?
Not sure ... might there have been something similar re. Roman Catholic marriages?
As fortunately most of my lot obediently got hatched, matched and despatched at their local Parish Churches, I'm a bit hazy on this....
Sorry if it's not very helpful.
Threlfall (Southport), Isherwood (lancs & Canada), Newbould + Topliss(Derby), Keating & Cummins (Ireland + lancs), Fisher, Strong& Casson (all Cumberland) & Downie & Bowie, Linlithgow area Scotland . Also interested in Leigh& Burrows,(Lancashire) Griffiths (Shropshire & lancs), Leaver (Lancs/Yorks) & Anderson(Cumberland and very elusive)

Offline stanmapstone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,798
    • View Profile
Re: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?
« Reply #24 on: Saturday 10 October 15 14:49 BST (UK) »
Seems obvious now you say it about being differing religions. Something new to ponder!

From what Arthur has posted it looks as though they could have been Methodists, which is a different Christian Denomination, not a different religion.

Stan
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline stanmapstone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,798
    • View Profile
Re: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?
« Reply #25 on: Saturday 10 October 15 14:52 BST (UK) »
After civil registration commenced a Catholic or non-conformist marriage was legal if a registrar of marriages was present, and it took place in a certified place of worship that had been registered for the solemnization of marriages. The marriage had to be preceded by civil preliminaries, i.e. it had to be by a Superintendent Registrar’s Certificate or a Superintendent Registrar’s Licence. This applied until the 1898 Act .(Marriage; Nonconformist Places of Worship). Under this Act Roman Catholics and Nonconformists were not required to have a civil Registrar present.

Stan
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline JohninSussex

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
    • View Profile
Re: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?
« Reply #26 on: Saturday 10 October 15 15:15 BST (UK) »
... this time from GENUKI: A small Weslyean Methodist chapel was established about 1805 and completely rebuilt in 1845.

Could it be that at the time of the marriage in 1844 the Wesleyan chapel was out of use, in the middle of being completely rebuilt?

Rutter, Sampson, Swinerd, Head, Redman in Kent.  Others in Cheshire, Manchester, Glos/War/Worcs.
RUTTER family and Matilda Sampson's Will: